GH2 for 'Cinematic look'

Bufff!! I have the same dilemma, I bought an a GH2 three months earlier. I search in a lot of forums what is better the canon cams or the gh2 cam. I decided buy the GH2 because technically the video is better than de DSLR canon cams, but now, I think that the panasonic is the cam for tv, not for cinematic shoots. I prefer have a cam whose record more filimc and less real, less tv. The gh2 have a lot of advantages for record video but the final result is very videojey. What do you think, i don't know what i do, I want to sell my gh2 but..... ARGGG!!!!
 
GH2 is better than any canon for 'cinematic' look (mega-shallow DOF is NOT cinematic look, ok?)
GH2 is far from 'videojey' as can be. only because it's more tweakable and flexible doesn't mean it cannot provide far superior results.
don't know how you shoot, but it's obvious you're missing something.
 
macolomer said:
Bufff!! I have the same dilemma, I bought an a GH2 three months earlier. I search in a lot of forums what is better the canon cams or the gh2 cam. I decided buy the GH2 because technically the video is better than de DSLR canon cams, but now, I think that the panasonic is the cam for tv, not for cinematic shoots. I prefer have a cam whose record more filimc and less real, less tv. The gh2 have a lot of advantages for record video but the final result is very videojey. What do you think, i don't know what i do, I want to sell my gh2 but..... ARGGG!!!!
Click to expand...

I was skeptical too at first. If you use the panasonic lenses they are incredibly sharp and look excellent. If you want a softer look, slightly more filmic, use canon lenses. Just get an adapter. I love the results I see. It's softer no doubt, but subtle enough to produce great results.

I use the Canon 28mm and 50mm FD lenses, love them.
 
This whole debate is is kind of strange. If Video came first Cine-film people would be trying to get the Video Look. One day video will have higher resolution and infinite (Withing Range) color adjustment. Then what? I've seen people use old film filters on there video to get the pops and lines from old worn out film stock. Yeah its fun but its a flaw. Imagine having a filter that simulated bad tracking on a VHS tape, snow and drop out on Film. You would think they were bonkers.

This mentally is the reason why people don't like electric cars because they don't have an engine roar! people like to hear that V8 even when an electric car can wipe the floor with a Ferrari.
Lets say the electric car came first, nobody would want a combustion engine, the noise and toxic fumes, the ridiculous cost of servicing, they would think your nuts for even making such a thing.

Film is an old technology with a limit capacity and its very costly and not environmental friendly at all. Video has not been around as long as film and its evolution so far is infantile, only today are we getting video that is pleasing to the human eye. What do you guys think will happen in the next 10 to 50 years? I really don't believe Film will exist anymore.
 
a camera should be able to provide a clean, low contrast and sharp image. All that comes next is your talent, and your knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Yeah the sharpness of the ghs, compared to the canons would give off a more perceived video look vs. the softer image of the canons. just like I couldn't figure out why the older dvxs looked so much more filmic than the newer hd cams when they started cropping up on the scene. some People for whatever reason perceive softer images as easier on the eye. To me the greatest advantage of an overly sharp camera would be for displaying on large screens.

I myself hate the look of really sharp dslr footage and still dial my canons down to give it a softer look. It's all in preference. But I will say there is a certain mojo to the canons especially when coupled with some nikon primes.
 
Sun said:
This whole debate is is kind of strange. If Video came first Cine-film people would be trying to get the Video Look. One day video will have higher resolution and infinite (Withing Range) color adjustment. Then what? I've seen people use old film filters on there video to get the pops and lines from old worn out film stock. Yeah its fun but its a flaw. Imagine having a filter that simulated bad tracking on a VHS tape, snow and drop out on Film. You would think they were bonkers.

This mentally is the reason why people don't like electric cars because they don't have an engine roar! people like to hear that V8 even when an electric car can wipe the floor with a Ferrari.
Lets say the electric car came first, nobody would want a combustion engine, the noise and toxic fumes, the ridiculous cost of servicing, they would think your nuts for even making such a thing.

Film is an old technology with a limit capacity and its very costly and not environmental friendly at all. Video has not been around as long as film and its evolution so far is infantile, only today are we getting video that is pleasing to the human eye. What do you guys think will happen in the next 10 to 50 years? I really don't believe Film will exist anymore.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said, other than the part about people trying to get the video look if it came first. If all we knew was video and someone came along and showed us this new thing called film that has better resolution, better color reproduction, better latitude, beautiful response to light.....We'd all be like WOW...tell us more about this film thing of which you speak.
That won't be true however in a matter of years like you said...with cameras like the Alexa, Red, etc. pushing the envelope....film will become a harder cost to justify. It happened so fast with SLRs it wasn't even funny. I remember being in Best Buy around 2002/3 (I could be off on this) and I was looking at the last of the film Rebels....and the price was just ridiculously low. Because the digitals were on the way.(and they cost $1000 or so) Now a mere 7/8 years later.....film seems like a dusty memory and digital is faster/cheaper(all costs included) easier and incredibly high quality.
 
Last edited:
pulpfiction007 said:
If all we knew was video and someone came along and showed us this new thing called film that has better resolution, better color reproduction, better latitude, beautiful response to light.....We'd all be like WOW.
Click to expand...


Of course if one is clearly better but what I was getting at was the condition that happens because one is considered the reference to which all others must be judged. I can flip through channels and recognize shows just by the film look, like Columbo, Murder She Wrote Cheers and so on, its a very distinct look and feel. Now today digital technology can reproduce all these looks with a digital front end. There is an App for the I-Phone that can give you a directors lens, translate European languages into English and God knows what else. It seems like I don't have time to learn all the functions of one App and another one comes along. Apps evolve faster as they are purely programs and cameras will take longer being hardware but its only a matter of time.

I fully accept the GH2 will be an old clunker in 5 years time, nobody dealing in film can say the same. I'm not concerned with the film look of the footage. I just want clear high res footage.



That won't be true however in a matter of years like you said...with cameras like the Alexa, Red, etc. pushing the envelope....film will become a harder cost to justify. It happened so fast with SLRs it wasn't even funny. I remember being in Best Buy around 2002/3 (I could be off on this) and I was looking at the last of the film Rebels....and the price was just ridiculously low. Because the digitals were on the way.(and they cost $1000 or so) Now a mere 7/8 years later.....film seems like a dusty memory and digital is faster/cheaper(all costs included) easier and incredibly high quality.[/QUOTE]
 
If GH2 had the custom "picture styles" like Canon cameras have, there would be no talk about GH2 not being filmic. People would create proper profiles with proper color tweaks and everyone would be happy. Right now the GH2 is the most awesome piece of hardware but with the worst and "subjective" internal settings of Panasonic.

I had GH2 for some time and ha to return it because of the way it handled yellows, oranges and greens (why are blues so hyper grainy??) + the overall gamma/brightness settings. Not to mention the problems with getting the "look" in post prod.

If we could alter the way that GH2 processes the raw data before baking it into the MTS would maybe even show that GH2 has the widest dynamic range of all DSLR's.. who knows..

and anyway.. sharpness is not the enemy of the cinematic/filmic look at all..
 
custom profile for GH2

custom profile for GH2

I was not happy with my T2i for months due to too much contrast outdoors, giving that harsh video look, until I loaded a "super flat" profile, tweaking it in post, stretching out the dynamic range in the shadows. I was ecstatic when I finally got result that looked somewhat like the movies and slides I watched in the 80's.
http://vimeo.com/18734110
The only thing missing was resolution. It just looked too fuzzy at full resolution.
So.. from what I have seen what GH2 can do, as far a its superiority in resolution over T2i, I thought I would give it a shot, having a cake (resolution) and eating it too (film/slide look).
So far, I am not successful. The resolution, without doubt, is much sharper than T2i, but colorwise, I am not able to duplicate what I achieved with T2i.
http://www.vimeo.com/21578995
I am not giving up just yet.
I think the first step is having a "super flat profile" for GH2. Is it even possible to create custom profile with GH2. If so, did/can anyone write a "super flat" profile for Gh2?

Bill
dslrforvideo.com
 
voelkerb,

Much of your GH-2 footage looks over exposed compared to your T2i footage. The lighting was also quite different, as most of your T2i footage looks like it was shot under fairly direct sunlight ( strong shadows ) while your GH-2 footage looks like it was shot under partially cloudy skies ( shadows are quite weak ). I would recommend that for partially cloudy or overcast skies that you shoot with the "Cinema" setting and set everything except saturation to -2. For clear skies with strong sunlight use the "Smooth" setting and also set everything except saturation to -2. Becareful to not over-expose your GH-2 footage.
 
Cinema mode
contrast +1, everything else -2 and I bump EC +1/3 stop and sometimes +1/2 stop
The default cinema is a little underexposed to me. With the above settings I get a cinematic, dramatic look without underexposing and with rich blacks.
 
youry, that sounds like a plan. I always suspected that if one shot to "slightly" overexpose the cinema mode you'd get much nicer images (not too dark). I'll have to give that a try. It's just that you can't trust the LCD to be accurate which I assume is why a lot of folks get dark images.
 
Ian-T said:
youry, that sounds like a plan. I always suspected that if one shot to "slightly" overexpose the cinema mode you'd get much nicer images (not too dark). I'll have to give that a try. It's just that you can't trust the LCD to be accurate which I assume is why a lot of folks get dark images.
Click to expand...

Remember that there is nothing your can do about harshly clipped overexposed parts, which makes the video look 'videoish' but you can always lift details from the shadows, usually. That's what I have done with my skydiving footage. Notice that clouds are not burned out yet you can see the details in the shadows of the jumpers. In standard settings, in both Canon and Panny, there usually is way too much contrast for my taste, so I always shoot flat, being careful not to overexpose the lightest parts of the image and lift the shadows during post. It looks different than most of brightly lit footage on Vimeo with dark shadows, but that's my personal preference.
 
youry said:
The default cinema is a little underexposed to me.
Click to expand...

The Cimema setting is designed to preserve highlights, with everything else pushed down the scale, which is why it looks underexposed. Once shot you need to lift the shadows in post to compensate for what the camera is doing. If you overexpose Cinema footage you are counteracting the highlight preservation.
 
I have found however that there is still some (very little) information leftover in the highlights after it appears blown. But this was so far only in Nostalgic mode. Its highlight curve is much smoother than all of the other modes. But.....it does tend to blow out easily. That's why I figured youry might be onto something with Cinema mode. The thing is.....it's difficult to get something clean (or detailed) out of underexposed images on this camera because of the AVCHD (maybe just this cameras implementation of it....who knows). But from what I've seen of the HDMI/Ninja capture...there is a heck-of-a-lot of clean detail in the underexposed areas. I think if one is serious about their image (when using this camera) the HDMI capture/AVISynth fix is really worth it.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
they used ISO 1600 on a Canon 7D for some of the scenes in "Black Swan" instead of ISO 1250 since it's so well-known that 1250 is cleaner
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Interesting! I didn't know this.
I bet it's during the highly noisy scene in the mom's house where the mom is sitting in a chair and Portman is, I believe sitting on the floor.
I hypothesize this becuase during the movie I was thinking "wow that looks bad"... the detail in the moms face was all smeared together and she looked almost like a monster. It was very, very noticable.

Do you know which shots were 7D @ 1600?
 
Last edited:
I think someone here said Smooth all -2 settings gives the most flat look. Then do color grading on it. Cinematic mode is mainly for little or no color grading during post-processing.

For cinematic look, whatever that is, I'd prefer Smooth film mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top